22 Responses to “The Death of a Child”

Three years those [expletive deleted] got, should of got life!. The child’s in a better place now , thank god! and won’t have to have a life of constant abuse, assaults, thrown in a tumble drier or hung on the line,bashed, under feed, bitten by under feed mongrel guard dogs while they dish out tinnies over the fence.

#3 fucking years is that all our children are worth? The Judge should have his [abusive comment deleted]. Nuff said.

The women were sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with no minimum term, so they will be out in about 18 months. Oh well, they only allowed their baby to die slowly while they rendered themselves senseless for fun, and it was only a worthless male baby, so what’s the big deal? Lucky they weren’t a guy who gently touched a female in a sexual way after she gave him mixed messages that may or may not have amounted to consent. He would be lucky to be out of prison in 18 months because his terrible crime would have really traumatized the woman and ruined her life or something. Much more serious than killing someone after all.

Then there is this case in which a woman violently assaulted a male pensioner because he dared to express disapproval that she didn’t dispose lawfully of her dog’s faeces. The assault caused injuries including blinding the pensioner in one eye. For this kindness, plus providing a false statement to police, plus stealing from another male pensioner by using his bank card “all over the place”, plus possessing methamphetamine, plus fleeing police and threatening them with a rock, plus stealing petrol from a service station, plus no doubt having previous convictions, she was sentenced to 2 years 3 months imprisonment with no minimum period. Wow, she’s lucky she didn’t have a penis and that her two detected civilian victims were only from that relatively worthless male sex, because if she had been a male and any victim had been female (s)he would be looking at a much longer sentence.

The Isaiah Neil case is just another one in which NZ authorities showed sexist favouritism. Serious concerns had been communicated to CYFS by extended family about the parents and grandmother spending money on synthetic cannabis instead of food for the children, and having been found by extended family to be in a ‘zombie’ state while responsible for the children. The mother’s sister then took the older children away to care for them and protect them but was ordered by CYFS to return them to the mother despite the evidence and warnings.

When a child is primarily cared for by a father it takes only one mistake or unsafe action on his part for our child protection authorities and our Family Court to remove the child from the father. However, when mothers or women are the primary caregivers, endless tolerance and trust is shown by our authorities towards them despite massive evidence that such trust is unsafe.

The case highlights also the consequences of prohibition. For whatever reason, people choose to use drugs including tobacco and alcohol. Keeping cannabis illegal put its supply into the hands of criminal gangs who found that highly addictive methamphetamine was easier to produce and much more lucrative. Synthetic cannabis (which is not cannabis at all) was also developed and for a time less dangerous forms of it were made legal, but since they were made illegal much more dangerous, totally unregulated forms of these non-cannabis drugs have proliferated and we now see people becoming addicted to them and the zombie-like state they cause. Prohibition through huge taxes is now being conducted towards tobacco and we see before our eyes the consequences, tobacco becoming a central focus of serious crime and an underground market. When will we learn?

Good point Evan Myers @5. Nevertheless, this father is responsible for his own irresponsible behaviour and he seriously failed to provide the role of protector. Yes, the system had probably empowered the women to cut his authority and role off at the knees.

Downunder @ 9: Your frequent attempts at one-upmanship and running down the efforts of other posters is tiring. Not sure of what motivates this, but it’s certainly of no value to the men’s movement.

Even though there is such a constant flow of examples, it’s important to highlight sexism against men, which is at the basis of the vast majority of men’s problems in the feminist era. It’s important even though there are so many examples. Your claim that it’s bad and ‘silly’ to do so is insulting and unappreciated.

I also agree with Downunder’s comment on the “constant sexist analysis”. If I had have wanted one-eyed rhetoric I would have joined the feminist movement. Just because something happens to a man, doesn’t mean it is sexist! From my understanding the father failed his obligations as a human being, not as a man.

Undeserved attempts at one-upmanship and running down the efforts of other contributors is devisive and destructive, even if they come from uniquely wise and intelligent people who can see the wood for the trees that other lower mortals can’t see. That is my opinion.

Block-quoting statements that aren’t quotes at all then commenting on them amounts to a strawman fallacy, of no value to reasoned debate. That is my opinion.

Highlighting sexism in the treatment of men in Courts, sentencing and other state processes is important. It isn’t being done elsewhere to any significant extent and it’s entirely appropriate on a site for

Since it seems to be ok here to critique other contributors’ efforts with insults such as “bad”, “silly” and “you can’t see the wood for the trees” (also all valid quotes), I will from now on proceed likewise.

ManX Norton @14, Everything said up until your last sentence was a good argument as you well know. I would hope to think that you won’t lower yourself to proceed likewise – rather you will shrug it off and continue to provide good contributions with integrity 🙂

She killed the girlfriend not the husband.
Maybe it sounds better killing the husband.
No comment about the custody decision but it seems the children we in the fathers custody when she killed the women.

So the baby is severely damaged.
She confessed to strangling the baby as a solution to suicide, apparently.
She confessed because she somehow felt guilty and wanted to go to prison to save her family stress.
So what if she gave no confession?
It as hell sounds like she gave one.
The injury is even consistent with the confession.
If she knew she did nothing to the baby how did she confess using a method of injury consistent with the injury?
Wouldn’t it be, no, no, no something terrible has happened, doctors what the hell is going on, how did this happen.

Surprise everybody.
She lied.

Result.
Jury gave her a pussy pass on the serous charges.
Suprise everybody.
The judge gave her a pussy pass on the guilty verdict.

How the hell is knowingly strangling a baby 3 times just common assault.
Only an idiot could come to the conclusion that strangling a baby is not something far more intentional and life threatening.
The resulting injury speaks for itself.

“Justice Martin Burns sentenced her to two years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of five years, for deliberately cutting off the infant’s air supply in October 2010.”

Did it “deliberately” take 7 years as well.
7 years for everybody to work out how to bullshit a jury.
WTF

DJ Ward @18: Incredible how so many people including juries will bend over backwards to rescue attractive females from having to take responsibility for their actions. In contrast, confessions made by men are allowed to continue to stand as sufficient evidence for guilty findings in the absence of any other consistent evidence, as was the case for the low-IQ Teina Pora. (While it became clear that Pora did not do what he confessed to, I believe he should only be compensated from the time that good evidence of his innocence was ignored by prosecutors and Courts.)

This case shows quite appealing appalling behaviour by a male.
I’ll ignor comparisons about women getting far less time for murder etc.
The bravery of the female officer while the other two are non described neighbors.

The issue in this case is false statements and the denial of an insanity defence.

“Herbert, who no longer suffers from psychosis or bipolar disorder”

So just by this statement alone there is an admission that he can experience Psycosis. This is in fact a state of mind that without an underlining mental illness like Scitzophenia or Bipolar is very difficult to have. It is by itself the very definition of insanity. In the event he showed very clear signs of Psycosis and clearly sane, stoned, or drunk people don’t behave like that. To rule out insanity as a defence is extremely questionable. Just because he is presently sane has no bearing on the offending event as he was clearly in a state of Psycosis and by definition insane.
To say he no longer suffers from Psycosis may be true as he would have over time with drugs bought back to the real world. This does not meen that Psycosis cannot start again.
To say he no longer suffers from Bipolar Disorder should result in the arrest of the person who said this in court because that is blatant perjury. Bipolar Disorder is incurable with different Brian structure from normal humans, and if they say he no longer has Bipolar meaning he is not being treated for it then Pyscosis is very likely to happen again. A person being medicated is still Bipolar with the symptoms of the disorder reduced, greatly improving quality of life but the symptoms are generally not eliminated. It is also the case that the off the charts severity of prolonged suicidal depression that can occur with Bipolar is the reason for the heavy cannabis use. This when the illness switches to mania Increases the risk of Psycosis.

I think what happened is abhorrent in regard to what happened to the child.
This however is not an excuse to get revenge on a person.
If the law says something and it’s ignored to get that revenge.
Especially when a level of dishonesty is included in the process.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.